It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
NHS England. 884 peak deaths 8/4 now look to be around 240.
Still consistent with daily drop of 4.5% to 5.0% - if that continues it'll fall 3x by 1/June. Maybe the rate of decline will slow as the lockdown frays at the edges, but there's been almost no sign of that so far (beyond anecdata).
Doesn't include care homes of course, which will presumably make up a larger and larger % of daily deaths from now on. Hopefully the large drop in infections outside will help bring them under control too.
Last time I did the exercise I concluded a -0.049 exponent on the virus decay (Or about 5% a day). Let's see with the latest numbers...
You're agreeing. But deaths are a lagging indicator of the state of the epidemic atm (even though they are the most important measure of its effect) . The current state of the epidemic is better revealed by new infections (also lagging, because of the delay in showing symptoms).
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
Parts of England. This is going to allow places like Tyneside are going to take off exponentially now. This is being too much led by London.
It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
Pete you are quickly becoming my favourite poster.
It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
Pete you are quickly becoming my favourite poster.
I can't explain how angry I am if Boris has indeed capitulated to the hawks.
It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
Excuse me.
On Italy I did not make it up
And I did not even mention fatality rates and nor have I said Boris has done a good job
It was Nicola who said her R rate is too high and she admitted Scotland is behind England
Rapid generation of neutralizing antibody responses in COVID-19 patients https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20084442v1.full.pdf ... Herein, we report the dynamics of antibody responses to the receptor- 32 binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and virus neutralization activity in 44 COVID-19 patients. RBD-specific IgG responses were detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation. Using a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2, neutralizing antibody titers were also detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation. The magnitude of RBD-specific IgG binding titers correlated strongly with viral neutralization. In a clinical setting, the initial analysis of the dynamics of RBD-specific IgG titers was corroborated in a larger cohort of PCR-confirmed patients (n=231). These findings have important implications for our understanding of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the use of immune plasma as a therapy, and the development of much-needed vaccines...
It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
Pete you are quickly becoming my favourite poster.
I can't explain how angry I am if Boris has indeed capitulated to the hawks.
Personally I think Johnson has done a crap job from pretty much the beginning - much of it in hindsight but I think for me the screwups became clear with PPE - but then I would say that, because I'm Labour supporting.
At least I accept I'm partisan, a few here seem to pretend they're not.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
Hmm...
Although, you might argue that nerds won internal party elections (the battle of the Millibands). You also have to explain why Ashdown (facing two nerds) did so poorly relative to nerdy Clegg, and why the SNP has been more successful with its current nerdy leader.
It is becoming fairly stark in this conference that Nicola is admitting Scotland is in a worse position than England
Today you have justified Boris' handling of Covid-19 by first saying we are not as bad as Italy because they have cooked the books and Boris has done a good job because the fatality rate is higher in Scotland. I find your arguments to be very distasteful.
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
Pete you are quickly becoming my favourite poster.
I can't explain how angry I am if Boris has indeed capitulated to the hawks.
Personally I think Johnson has done a crap job from pretty much the beginning - much of it in hindsight but I think for me the screwups became clear with PPE - but then I would say that, because I'm Labour supporting.
At least I accept I'm partisan, a few here seem to pretend they're not.
Negotiating us through Covid 19 is a thankless task. PPE provision, testing numbers, even care home management are easy to carp over from the sidelines, but today's change to the message is either malevolent or plain stupid.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
This is a very subjective definition of Nerd. I notice that you have Corbyn as a nerd in 2019 but not in 2017. I don't think that Howard was a nerd. WIthout charisma yes but not nerdy. I would also say that Thatcher was both nerdy and charismatic, and to a lesser extent so was Tony Blair.
In which case, what were the 55% thinking in 2014? Why didn't they run away screaming when given the chance? Was it a mass outbreak of Stockholm Syndrome? Seriously, whereas most tax does indeed end up being aggregated centrally, and thus Scotland ends up very largely dependent on a block grant (which I agree is wrong: the failure to devolve tax raising powers to the Scottish Parliament that are commensurate with its responsibilities is one of the two basic flaws in the devolution settlement,) Scotland gets back more from the UK Treasury than it pays in tax. This has been the case for most (though not all) of the period since devolution commenced, even allowing for a geographical share of North Sea revenues. Given that Scotland has more money spent on it than it raises, what it gets back is obviously not minimal; moreover, there must necessarily be a net flow of capital from cash "squandered on pet projects" (e.g. HS2, which I acknowledge looks increasingly useless given the way the world is now moving) to cash spent on nice things for Scotland, and not the other way around. Returning to 2014 for a moment, that's probably what saved the Union the last time around. It was perfectly obvious to most Scottish taxpayers that they were receiving meaningful support from South of the Border. If Scotland were a sustained net contributor to the UK Treasury, as Catalonia is to Spain, then the Yes campaign would probably have won. I will now retire to trench with helmet and await verbal hand grenades.
Not at all , a good post but some inaccuracies there. As you say it is far from optimal for Scotland as policy and spending is mainly decided by England and English priorities, these are not suitable for a small country. You are wrong in that Scotland if you look back 30 - 40 years is a NET contributer to UK, last numbers I saw were £68B and even if supposedly in deficit last couple of years we are still in the green for contributing. You should also know we pay a share of HS2 as they claim it benefits Scotland but as a special project they don't add it to Barnett, which is common, whereas with Forth bridge they refused to contribute at all. The NO vote was down to over 65's and people not born in Scotland, indigenous people were in favour and vote was swung by people from outwith Scotland, lots from EU as scared to be out and many English naturally but far from all. Still if the cowardly pensioners had any backbone it would still have been won. Young people are very in favour of independence, Europeans realise what a balls they made and some more English will realise they really don't want to be under the Tories so next time, good few of the old pensioners will be gone and so next time the result is going to be very different. Hence Tories stalling but it is only a matter of time. @Black_Rook
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
Hmm...
Although, you might argue that nerds won internal party elections (the battle of the Millibands). You also have to explain why Ashdown (facing two nerds) did so poorly relative to nerdy Clegg, and why the SNP has been more successful with its current nerdy leader.
I'm taking about possible PMs head to head, which has only really ever been Labour vs Tory. Clegg had a bit about him as evidenced by the Cleggasm, not to mention his amazing tally of 30 lovers!!
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
Hmm...
Although, you might argue that nerds won internal party elections (the battle of the Millibands). You also have to explain why Ashdown (facing two nerds) did so poorly relative to nerdy Clegg, and why the SNP has been more successful with its current nerdy leader.
I'm taking about possible PMs head to head, which has only really ever been Labour vs Tory. Clegg had a bit about him as evidenced by the Cleggasm, not to mention his amazing tally of 30 lovers!!
He never claimed to have 30 lovers, but that he had had sex with 30 different women.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
Dealing with insurance for unusual events is like playing poker without looking at your cards. I know someone who far-sightedly insured against pandemics. The insurance company has refused his claim because "This is not a pandemc as previously known" (cholera etc.) - in other words, they disclaim liability for anything new. Without seeing his policy I can't judge the rights and wrongs, but it's clearly an act of God in the traditional sense.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
Just watched a rather interesting video from Scientists for Europe which suggests that the concept behind the message is one of changing responsibility from the Government tot he individual.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
Absolutely. Which is why it seemed odd to justify it on the basis of government closures rather than wider socio-economic policy. But I hadn't known about the point re business interruption insurance being invalidated by government order (counterintuitively if one is not familiar with this) - that also changes the argument.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
It may be that they want everyone to feel comfortable going outside, walking round to speak to a friend from a safe distance. All the sorts of things confident people who would happily laugh at a police officer trying to stop them have been doing anyway.
For me, the most important change needs to be around general medical care. We need people to feel safe to go to hospital for regular care. My dad had a pacemaker fitted five weeks ago. He thought nothing of the COVID-19 risk, but others will be much more scared.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
Parts of England. This is going to allow places like Tyneside are going to take off exponentially now. This is being too much led by London.
Sorry to have to bore about this again, BUT... the hospitalisation numbers in all the English regions are dropping faster than those in Scotland.
It does appear that the notion that Scotland is having particular difficulty in managing the pandemic may be correct. However, this is not necessarily a product of deficient policy.
In any event, the only meaningful difference between the Scottish easing of the lockdown and that already announced by Wales is that the Welsh are letting the garden centres reopen. I imagine that the position in England will also be something pretty similar.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
Dealing with insurance for unusual events is like playing poker without looking at your cards. I know someone who far-sightedly insured against pandemics. The insurance company has refused his claim because "This is not a pandemc as previously known" (cholera etc.) - in other words, they disclaim liability for anything new. Without seeing his policy I can't judge the rights and wrongs, but it's clearly an act of God in the traditional sense.
Now that is unfair - one wonders what would have happened if it was a new variantf of, indeed, cholera or flu? and how new?
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
Malc.
I have not mentioned death rates at anytime
I listened to Nicola and she was frank Scotland's R number is too high
It is clear that the UK may need to diverge at different speeds but that has it's own problems, especially for those living near the borders of the devolved adminstration
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
Major was more of a nerd than Kinnock in 1992, so Major was the last nerd to win a majority at a UK general election, though May got most seats despite being more of a nerd than Corbyn in 2017 and Brown prevented Cameron winning a majority in 2010 despite being more of a nerd than Cameron.
Heath in 1970 was the last nerd to win a general election before Major and Attlee was the other post-war nerd to win a general election in 1945 and 1950 when he beat the more charismatic Churchill
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
My fault I am afraid Malcolm. Frustration at BigGs criticism of Sturgeon c.f. Boris in the heat of the moment. I should have refered to the R value.
I am sick and tired of posters supporting Johnson just for the sake of it.
John Rentoul who had to shamefacedly admit that English PPE companies had made garbled and conflicting statements about only supplying England? Cast iron, solid source on such matters.
John Rentoul who had to shamefacedly admit that English PPE companies had made garbled and conflicting statements about only supplying England? Cast iron, solid source on such matters.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
My fault I am afraid Malcolm. Frustration at BigGs criticism of Sturgeon c.f. Boris in the heat of the moment.
Never a good idea to comment 'in the heat of the moment' maybe
John Rentoul who had to shamefacedly admit that English PPE companies had made garbled and conflicting statements about only supplying England? Cast iron, solid source on such matters.
I mean he's not reporting on private discussions or anything here, rather a view on public pronouncements.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
It could actually be worse than that. If your daughter's business isn't a limited company then she could well be personally liable for the rent until the landlord finds a new tenant, or she finds someone to take over the lease. Being a limited company may actually not provide security if she, as the major shareholder, has been guarantor for the lease. Happened to me. Quite a few years ago now, but it was hard work getting it sorted.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
In the US Nixon in 1968 and 1972 and Bush Snr in 1988 were nerds who won.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
My fault I am afraid Malcolm. Frustration at BigGs criticism of Sturgeon c.f. Boris in the heat of the moment.
Never a good idea to comment 'in the heat of the moment' maybe
Probably time to keep away from PB. My mistake and I can only apologise.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
In the US Nixon in 1968 and 1972 and Bush Snr in 1988 were nerds who won.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
The two Harolds - Macmillan and Wilson - were also showmen in their time, but both were also competent.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
Hmm...
Although, you might argue that nerds won internal party elections (the battle of the Millibands). You also have to explain why Ashdown (facing two nerds) did so poorly relative to nerdy Clegg, and why the SNP has been more successful with its current nerdy leader.
Salmond won an outright SNP majority in 2011, Sturgeon did not in 2016 but needed the Greens
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
In the US Nixon in 1968 and 1972 and Bush Snr in 1988 were nerds who won.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
Absolutely. Which is why it seemed odd to justify it on the basis of government closures rather than wider socio-economic policy. But I hadn't known about the point re business interruption insurance being invalidated by government order (counterintuitively if one is not familiar with this) - that also changes the argument.
I posted about it at the time and mentioned it in the first header I did on the commercial consequences of this virus.
The government took responsibility for those businesses. It cannot now abandon them.
It also needs to distance itself - and sharpish - from the suggestion that it believes those on furlough are somehow “addicts”. The anger my daughter and her employees feel at this is very real and will not be forgotten.
Incidentally, Tim Farron, though not the MP for our constituency, is lobbying hard for help for the restaurant/pub/tourism sector. The local MP, Trudi Harrison, Boris’s PPS, has been silent on the topic. This too will not be forgotten.
In its early stages, the epidemic doubled in size every 7.4 days. With a mean serial interval of 7.5 days (95% CI, 5.3 to 19), the basic reproductive number was estimated to be 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9).
Is there a formula that links doubling (Or halving) time, the serial interval (Can assume that is 7.5 days for this virus) and spits out a R_t ?
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
Modern life is sop different from that of the last century. Thats why I started with Blair. He was the first showman to win
The two Harolds - Macmillan and Wilson - were also showmen in their time, but both were also competent.
You could also mention Hailsham and Benn as showmen from that era who never quite made it to No. 10.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
In the US Nixon in 1968 and 1972 and Bush Snr in 1988 were nerds who won.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
You can make an argument in 2010 that the country wasn't particularly impressed with either offer.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
You can make an argument in 2010 that the country wasn't particularly impressed with either offer.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
But was that inspite of Cameron rather than because of him? The Tories might well have matched those gains had Hague been leader in 2010.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
My fault I am afraid Malcolm. Frustration at BigGs criticism of Sturgeon c.f. Boris in the heat of the moment.
Never a good idea to comment 'in the heat of the moment' maybe
Probably time to keep away from PB. My mistake and I can only apologise.
No please do not do that
I read your posts with great interest and thank you for your apology
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert is a sensible move away from stay at home
However, Nicola is admitting Scotland is de facto in a worse position than England
G, you must be deaf or did not hear what she said, we are at different stages given England got their infections weeks before Scotland so by any measure we are 2-3 weeks behind. Still if you look at the numbers per capita then Scotland's death rate is currently well below England. How did you deduce it was worse.
My fault I am afraid Malcolm. Frustration at BigGs criticism of Sturgeon c.f. Boris in the heat of the moment. I should have refered to the R value.
I am sick and tired of posters supporting Johnson just for the sake of it.
I meant defending Johnson rather than supporting Johnson.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
You can make an argument in 2010 that the country wasn't particularly impressed with either offer.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992 Major vs Kinnock - Nerd won.
Also for our WW2 buffs:
1945 Churchill vs Attlee - Nerd won.
Certainly charisma is quite marketable in politics, but so is competence...
If the economy is in the toilet, then the public will vote for competence, I think.
Thats what I thought in 2010
Arguably, the public perception was that the economy *was* in the toilet, or was that your point?
Approval in the Government is dropping slowly, from its peak a few weeks ago. I am quite confident it will be net negative soon.
Yes, I am agreeing. I thought Brown would do better because he was nerdy competence to David Camerons style over substance
Brown played Martin to Cameron's Paul, in Ever Decreasing Circles terms
You can make an argument in 2010 that the country wasn't particularly impressed with either offer.
Although having said that, 97 seats turnover is impressive.
But was that inspite of Cameron rather than because of him? The Tories might well have matched those gains had Hague been leader in 2010.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
But the process is going to be a slow reopening. Starting with a few things this week but with an expanding list. The idea that nothing has changed is for the birds.
John Rentoul who had to shamefacedly admit that English PPE companies had made garbled and conflicting statements about only supplying England? Cast iron, solid source on such matters.
More Nat Onal grievanceology.....
I've no wish to set you Natonanists off again but you should probably have a word with Johnny about his grievanceology.
Yet the public (or the people who do opinion polls) rate him 48-19 better than Starmer in terms of who they'd like to lead us through the covid crisis.
Someone who shook hands with people before telling us not to, was late to lockdown, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, caught the disease along with his closest allies in the fight against it, nearly died, looks like shit, and is forensically picked apart by Sir Keir at PMQs (to take his opponents view on all the aforementioned as legit)
Either the polls are nonsense, or the public always prefer charisma to nerdiness. The polls may well be nonsense, but in real elections...
When has the nerdier option won?
1997 Blair vs Major - Nerd lost 2001 Blair vs Hague - Nerd lost 2005 Blair vs Howard - Nerd lost 2010 Brown vs Cameron - Nerd lost 2015 Cameron vs Miliband - Nerd lost 2016 EU Ref Cameron & Osborne vs Boris & Farage - Nerds lost 2017 May vs Corbyn - Nerd won narrowly after polls gave unassailable lead 2019 Boris vs Corbyn - Nerd lost 2024 Boris vs Starmer...
1992, 1970 and 1945 are examples of the more 'charismatic' choice losing.
Looking at another country, William Jennings Bryan was possibly the most charismatic candidate ever chosen by a major party. His (three) candidacies were, however, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, so before the modern media age.
In the US Nixon in 1968 and 1972 and Bush Snr in 1988 were nerds who won.
In some respects Biden resembles Humphrey, a former VP from a non establishment background put up against a very divisive and aggressive GOP candidate.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
It could actually be worse than that. If your daughter's business isn't a limited company then she could well be personally liable for the rent until the landlord finds a new tenant, or she finds someone to take over the lease. Being a limited company may actually not provide security if she, as the major shareholder, has been guarantor for the lease. Happened to me. Quite a few years ago now, but it was hard work getting it sorted.
She operates via a limited company and is not a guarantor of the lease. The landlord who lives locally and used to be the previous tenant is no keener than anyone else to see the pub closed down. But a part-time takeaway is not viable. That point is rapidly being reached.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
But the process is going to be a slow reopening. Starting with a few things this week but with an expanding list. The idea that nothing has changed is for the birds.
Stay alert to me implies life as normal but being more aware of what is going on. Life is not returning to normal.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
But the process is going to be a slow reopening. Starting with a few things this week but with an expanding list. The idea that nothing has changed is for the birds.
Stay alert to me implies life as normal but being more aware of what is going on. Life is not returning to normal.
How does it imply life is normal? If things are normal you wouldn't have to be alert for coronavirus.
I recall a few weeks ago someone (I can't remember whom) theorised then that covid-19 would prove to be a 120 day epidemic, reaching its peak approximately 60 days after first appearing in a particular country or area and largely disappearing after a further period of 60 days. I realise that this sounds incredibly simple, naive even, but strangely, give or take, this seems to the way things seem to have been working out so far, notwithstanding that different countries have adopted different policies in dealing with the epidemic in their own country. If this theory were to prove broadly accurate, the UK should be largely rid of significant numbers of new cases being identified beyond mid-June. Please God let this be the case.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Scrutiny and questioning. We are a Parliamentary democracy. Changes to the regulations under which we live, on pain of criminal enforcement, should be announced to Parliament and the PM should answer questions about them.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Scrutiny and questioning. We are a Parliamentary democracy. Changes to the regulations under which we live, on pain of criminal enforcement, should be announced to Parliament and the PM should answer questions about them.
I recall a few weeks ago someone (I can't remember whom) theorised then that covid-19 would prove to be a 120 day epidemic, reaching its peak approximately 60 days after first appearing in a particular country or area and largely disappearing after a further period of 60 days. I realise that this sounds incredibly simple, naive even, but strangely, give or take, this seems to the way things seem to have been working out so far, notwithstanding that different countries have adopted different policies in dealing with the epidemic in their own country. If this theory were to prove broadly accurate, the UK should be largely rid of significant numbers of new cases being identified beyond mid-June. Please God let this be the case.
I hope this is true, but I suspect the decrease in cases is lockdown-related. The official policies may vary from place to place, but the spontaneous response of people avoiding large crowds and events has been fairly universal across a range of countries. We'll see in a few weeks but I think we've got a long road ahead.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert. Control the virus. Save lives
Basically it means don’t become complacent.
It is a vacuous statement. Stay alert whilst you party like it's 1999.
I recall a few weeks ago someone (I can't remember whom) theorised then that covid-19 would prove to be a 120 day epidemic, reaching its peak approximately 60 days after first appearing in a particular country or area and largely disappearing after a further period of 60 days. I realise that this sounds incredibly simple, naive even, but strangely, give or take, this seems to the way things seem to have been working out so far, notwithstanding that different countries have adopted different policies in dealing with the epidemic in their own country. If this theory were to prove broadly accurate, the UK should be largely rid of significant numbers of new cases being identified beyond mid-June. Please God let this be the case.
I never thought it was naive, it was always a pretty likely scenario.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert. Control the virus. Save lives
Basically it means don’t become complacent.
It is a vacuous statement. Stay alert whilst you party like it's 1999.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Scrutiny and questioning. We are a Parliamentary democracy. Changes to the regulations under which we live, on pain of criminal enforcement, should be announced to Parliament and the PM should answer questions about them.
That'll still happen this week, won't it?
Will it?
Why the need for a TV speech at all? Budgets get announced in Parliament. Why should this be any different?
This is exactly what the EU doesn't need, to piss off its wealthiest member and largest contributor to the budget when it is about to ask it to underwrite €1.5tn in new loans. What a completely stupid thing to do.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
But the process is going to be a slow reopening. Starting with a few things this week but with an expanding list. The idea that nothing has changed is for the birds.
Stay alert to me implies life as normal but being more aware of what is going on. Life is not returning to normal.
How does it imply life is normal? If things are normal you wouldn't have to be alert for coronavirus.
They say to be aware of the step when you're getting on the Tube, it's going about your business but being more careful about what's going on around you. The advice remains to stay at home, it is not a good message. When people are allowed to go back to work, things are normal again, then perhaps you can see be aware of Coronavirus - but right now it's the wrong time and the wrong message.
That is my perception and interpretation of the message. You aren't going to change my mind.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Scrutiny and questioning. We are a Parliamentary democracy. Changes to the regulations under which we live, on pain of criminal enforcement, should be announced to Parliament and the PM should answer questions about them.
Questions will be answered tomorrow and on Wednesday and more. This is for the public's consumption.
On topic, we have poor decision-making because the government and the party from which it is formed is too much of a personality cult around Boris. And Boris himself is not exactly someone with much experience of effective implementation of anything, commercial or economic understanding or an attention to detail. His skills are not the ones you need at such a time. And he does not have a strong Cabinet around him.
Add to that the fact that he may not be at his best and it is not surprising that we are not well governed and that we are being briefed on a speech on a Sunday evening rather than a proper announcement to Parliament.
Of course he should get better properly. Whether a fit Boris would be any more effective than now, God knows. I don’t get the impression that anyone in government really knows what they are doing or is prepared to be honest with us.
I’m usually a stickler for constitutional proprietary.
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Why? Parliament on Monday. Then a TV address if needed.
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
How will he be getting away with it? Either it's a TV announcement or a announcement in the Commons, nothing in the package would be different.
Scrutiny and questioning. We are a Parliamentary democracy. Changes to the regulations under which we live, on pain of criminal enforcement, should be announced to Parliament and the PM should answer questions about them.
That'll still happen this week, won't it?
Will it?
Why the need for a TV speech at all? Budgets get announced in Parliament. Why should this be any different?
He’s not the Queen.
Yes, it's scheduled for 3pm on Monday. How that is Boris "getting away with it" is beyond me, frankly.
I don't know why we're changing the message if we don't really want the public to change anything.
But they do want behaviour to change, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it.
What do we want to change? Government advice remains to stay at home.
But not as religiously as previously as things will start to be slowly reopened.
What will be announced tonight that means that I will be leaving the house. Nothing. The reality is nothing has changed, the message has just got more confusing.
But the process is going to be a slow reopening. Starting with a few things this week but with an expanding list. The idea that nothing has changed is for the birds.
Stay alert to me implies life as normal but being more aware of what is going on. Life is not returning to normal.
How does it imply life is normal? If things are normal you wouldn't have to be alert for coronavirus.
They say to be aware of the step when you're getting on the Tube, it's going about your business but being more careful about what's going on around you. The advice remains to stay at home, it is not a good message. When people are allowed to go back to work, things are normal again, then perhaps you can see be aware of Coronavirus - but right now it's the wrong time and the wrong message.
That is my perception and interpretation of the message. You aren't going to change my mind.
Well we were talking about whether nothing had changed, not whether the message was good or bad.
Nicola live just now seems to admit the R range is high and she cannot change the advice. I do not know but maybe Wales is the same and of course this complicates the position
Nicola expects difference to the advice post Boris speech tonight will be minor
Boris has to look to the advice and as far as I am concerned stay alert is sensible and I am not sure that the conflicting advice will be that helpful to the first ministers as many seem to think
It will of course be best to align the processes but Nicola does not want stay alert advertising in Scotland. There are real dangers here for Nicola to be painting Scotland's present position to be poor and of course the NHS in Scotland is her responsibility
What does stay alert actually mean? Stay at home means stay at home.
Nicola doesn't have to explain her position other than acknowledging she has erred on the side of caution. She may well be wrong and Boris may well be right. When the post Covid political post mortems are in Nicola can say she was wrong, the already shot economy might take a little longer to recover but she felt the risk was worth it if it saved lives. If the opposite turns out to be true Boris will have rather a lot of fatalities to justify.
Stay alert. Control the virus. Save lives
Basically it means don’t become complacent.
It is a vacuous statement. Stay alert whilst you party like it's 1999.
That's not going to be happening.
...or whilst you travel to work on a packed tube train.
In response to the suggestion on the previous thread that closing down a restaurant without compensation is no different to closing down a takeaway with E-coli:-
A nonsense comparison. A takeaway which is infected is at fault. It is only temporarily shut down and can remedy the situation. A restaurant which cannot operate because of this virus is not at fault. It is closed because of a government decision. It should either be supported until it can. Or compensated so that those running and working in it can use the compensation to do something else that is legal and viable.
If you close whole sectors of the economy without some form of compensation, expect a major depression, social unrest and never again to win an election in your newly won seats.
Similarly, the idea that Covid-19 is just another risk which a business has to bear is also idiotic.
The reason why this risk should be paid for by the government - and not others - is because other risks, such as the risk of fire, can be insured against. This one can’t.
Comments noted, thank you.
I did say support was justifiable - just that I had problems accepting that it should be justified narrowly on the government's alleged liability for stopping businesses from operating in an unsafe manner.
And as for insurance, we have the tennis at Wimbledon as an example of pandemic insurance. Though I am sure most businesses are in the position of a shop in the lower parts of York or Bridgnorth whose flood insyrance premiums have gone through the roof.
My daughter’s business interruption insurance would have covered her if she got the illness at her restaurant and had to be shut down. But not if she was shut down because of a government order. The government should in my view either act as insurer of last resort or compensate her for the fact that she cannot operate her business at all now or viably in future.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
It could actually be worse than that. If your daughter's business isn't a limited company then she could well be personally liable for the rent until the landlord finds a new tenant, or she finds someone to take over the lease. Being a limited company may actually not provide security if she, as the major shareholder, has been guarantor for the lease. Happened to me. Quite a few years ago now, but it was hard work getting it sorted.
She operates via a limited company and is not a guarantor of the lease. The landlord who lives locally and used to be the previous tenant is no keener than anyone else to see the pub closed down. But a part-time takeaway is not viable. That point is rapidly being reached.
I'm glad to hear it. Also that landlord is likely to be 'reasonable'. Mine wasn't. I am though reminded of the time I was guarantor for a company's Bank Loan, a company in which my sister (a widow) was a partner. We came to suspect that the other partner was involved in some sort of dubious dealings, and I rang the Bank Manager, all innocent and said sorry and all that but I was getting involved in something else, and didn't want the liability. Would the bank please release me. There was a long, long pause. Then the Manager, a Scot said very slowly that 'The bank would no wish to release you at the moment!' Which told us what we wanted to know, of course!
Comments
Excrement still smells like excrement even if you coat it in sugar.
But deaths are a lagging indicator of the state of the epidemic atm (even though they are the most important measure of its effect) . The current state of the epidemic is better revealed by new infections (also lagging, because of the delay in showing symptoms).
Humoral immune response and prolonged PCR positivity in a cohort of 1343 SARS-CoV 2 patients in the New York City region
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.30.20085613v1
On Italy I did not make it up
And I did not even mention fatality rates and nor have I said Boris has done a good job
It was Nicola who said her R rate is too high and she admitted Scotland is behind England
Please do not shoot the messenger
Rapid generation of neutralizing antibody responses in COVID-19 patients
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20084442v1.full.pdf
... Herein, we report the dynamics of antibody responses to the receptor-
32 binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and virus neutralization activity in 44 COVID-19 patients. RBD-specific IgG responses were detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation. Using a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2, neutralizing antibody titers were also detectable in all patients 6 days after PCR confirmation. The magnitude of RBD-specific IgG binding titers correlated strongly with viral neutralization. In a clinical setting, the initial analysis of the dynamics of RBD-specific IgG titers was corroborated in a larger cohort of PCR-confirmed patients (n=231). These findings have important implications for our understanding of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the use of immune plasma as a therapy, and the development of much-needed vaccines...
At least I accept I'm partisan, a few here seem to pretend they're not.
We have been discussing her future. If furlough is withdrawn or reduced at the end of June or ealier but the 2 metre rule is still in place, her business is no longer viable.
At that point she will close it down. 4 jobs lost - 3 of them for people in their 20’s. One will have difficulties paying rent and has 3 children to look after. The local pub for 2 villages and the surrounding area is closed. The landlord loses his rental income and the value of his property is affected. The village loses its only communal gathering place. Local suppliers lose business.
Her business will not be the only one In the area making similar calculations. The consequences will be similar. Multiply that by the thousands of cafes, pubs, hotels restaurants and other visitor attractions which make the bulk of the tourism industry here - one of the main parts of the Lakeland economy - and work out what that means. Then ask yourself what the alternative is.
Tourism is often the alternative to earlier industries. What is the alternative now? Sellafield? Agriculture? Farmers are throwing away milk because of the loss of orders from the hospitality trade. They have the end of the Brexit transition to worry about. What is the alternative?
It is very possible that there will be a vaccine. At which point tourism is viable again. So does it not make sense to support businesses until then in some way? 2 years of economic depression in relatively poor areas will be no picnic for anyone concerned, let alone the government.
Although, you might argue that nerds won internal party elections (the battle of the Millibands). You also have to explain why Ashdown (facing two nerds) did so poorly relative to nerdy Clegg, and why the SNP has been more successful with its current nerdy leader.
Black_Rook said:
» show previous quotes
In which case, what were the 55% thinking in 2014? Why didn't they run away screaming when given the chance? Was it a mass outbreak of Stockholm Syndrome?
Seriously, whereas most tax does indeed end up being aggregated centrally, and thus Scotland ends up very largely dependent on a block grant (which I agree is wrong: the failure to devolve tax raising powers to the Scottish Parliament that are commensurate with its responsibilities is one of the two basic flaws in the devolution settlement,) Scotland gets back more from the UK Treasury than it pays in tax. This has been the case for most (though not all) of the period since devolution commenced, even allowing for a geographical share of North Sea revenues.
Given that Scotland has more money spent on it than it raises, what it gets back is obviously not minimal; moreover, there must necessarily be a net flow of capital from cash "squandered on pet projects" (e.g. HS2, which I acknowledge looks increasingly useless given the way the world is now moving) to cash spent on nice things for Scotland, and not the other way around. Returning to 2014 for a moment, that's probably what saved the Union the last time around. It was perfectly obvious to most Scottish taxpayers that they were receiving meaningful support from South of the Border. If Scotland were a sustained net contributor to the UK Treasury, as Catalonia is to Spain, then the Yes campaign would probably have won.
I will now retire to trench with helmet and await verbal hand grenades.
Not at all , a good post but some inaccuracies there. As you say it is far from optimal for Scotland as policy and spending is mainly decided by England and English priorities, these are not suitable for a small country. You are wrong in that Scotland if you look back 30 - 40 years is a NET contributer to UK, last numbers I saw were £68B and even if supposedly in deficit last couple of years we are still in the green for contributing. You should also know we pay a share of HS2 as they claim it benefits Scotland but as a special project they don't add it to Barnett, which is common, whereas with Forth bridge they refused to contribute at all.
The NO vote was down to over 65's and people not born in Scotland, indigenous people were in favour and vote was swung by people from outwith Scotland, lots from EU as scared to be out and many English naturally but far from all. Still if the cowardly pensioners had any backbone it would still have been won.
Young people are very in favour of independence, Europeans realise what a balls they made and some more English will realise they really don't want to be under the Tories so next time, good few of the old pensioners will be gone and so next time the result is going to be very different. Hence Tories stalling but it is only a matter of time.
@Black_Rook
For me, the most important change needs to be around general medical care. We need people to feel safe to go to hospital for regular care. My dad had a pacemaker fitted five weeks ago. He thought nothing of the COVID-19 risk, but others will be much more scared.
It does appear that the notion that Scotland is having particular difficulty in managing the pandemic may be correct. However, this is not necessarily a product of deficient policy.
In any event, the only meaningful difference between the Scottish easing of the lockdown and that already announced by Wales is that the Welsh are letting the garden centres reopen. I imagine that the position in England will also be something pretty similar.
God, I hate twitter. Esp people who post those gif things.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1259488019045928960?s=20
I have not mentioned death rates at anytime
I listened to Nicola and she was frank Scotland's R number is too high
It is clear that the UK may need to diverge at different speeds but that has it's own problems, especially for those living near the borders of the devolved adminstration
Heath in 1970 was the last nerd to win a general election before Major and Attlee was the other post-war nerd to win a general election in 1945 and 1950 when he beat the more charismatic Churchill
I am sick and tired of posters supporting Johnson just for the sake of it.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/joeydurso/british-politics-twitter-propaganda-bots-fake
Aren't these the corona bubbles?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nue8j_52M6Q
Happened to me. Quite a few years ago now, but it was hard work getting it sorted.
Obama in 2008 was also more of a nerd than McCain
But on this occasion the PM should be speaking to the nation, live. It’s too important.
He should, of course, follow up with a statement to Parliament on Monday with MPs having the opportunity to hold him to account.
Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter also condemns the government’s “embarrassing” handling of Covid-19"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/10/coronavirus-risk-young-staggeringly-low-says-uks-top-statistician/
https://youtu.be/HJ-659b76h4
The government took responsibility for those businesses. It cannot now abandon them.
It also needs to distance itself - and sharpish - from the suggestion that it believes those on furlough are somehow “addicts”. The anger my daughter and her employees feel at this is very real and will not be forgotten.
Incidentally, Tim Farron, though not the MP for our constituency, is lobbying hard for help for the restaurant/pub/tourism sector. The local MP, Trudi Harrison, Boris’s PPS, has been silent on the topic. This too will not be forgotten.
In its early stages, the epidemic doubled in size every 7.4 days. With a mean serial interval of 7.5 days (95% CI, 5.3 to 19), the basic reproductive number was estimated to be 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9).
Is there a formula that links doubling (Or halving) time, the serial interval (Can assume that is 7.5 days for this virus) and spits out a R_t ?
I read your posts with great interest and thank you for your apology
All the best
This is all about making it about him and avoiding scrutiny. It is too important for him to be allowed to get away with it.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/7/21250357/france-masks-public-transport-mandatory-ai-surveillance-camera-software
Basically it means don’t become complacent.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1250410931206721536?s=20
Nixon won by just 0.7% in 1968
I realise that this sounds incredibly simple, naive even, but strangely, give or take, this seems to the way things seem to have been working out so far, notwithstanding that different countries have adopted different policies in dealing with the epidemic in their own country. If this theory were to prove broadly accurate, the UK should be largely rid of significant numbers of new cases being identified beyond mid-June. Please God let this be the case.
https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1259495446713634817?s=20
*dons flameproof coat*
Why the need for a TV speech at all? Budgets get announced in Parliament. Why should this be any different?
He’s not the Queen.
That is my perception and interpretation of the message. You aren't going to change my mind.
I am though reminded of the time I was guarantor for a company's Bank Loan, a company in which my sister (a widow) was a partner. We came to suspect that the other partner was involved in some sort of dubious dealings, and I rang the Bank Manager, all innocent and said sorry and all that but I was getting involved in something else, and didn't want the liability. Would the bank please release me.
There was a long, long pause. Then the Manager, a Scot said very slowly that 'The bank would no wish to release you at the moment!'
Which told us what we wanted to know, of course!